Universal Access To All Knowledge
Home Donate | Store | Blog | FAQ | Jobs | Volunteer Positions | Contact | Bios | Forums | Projects | Terms, Privacy, & Copyright
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload

Reply to this post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: xvgi Date: May 24, 2010 2:35am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Charlie Miller

Let me firstly attempt to head off any attacks on my character by pointing out that – one: I regard the archive as a wonderful thing and it has provided me with endless hours of joy for which I am supremely grateful and what I am about to say shouldn’t be seen as looking a gift horse in the mouth...and two: I appreciate the awe Mr Charlie Miller is held in and I would be the first to say that his work is indeed a wonderful thing

but

I have noticed with several shows that the Miller versions have a fair number of glitches that aren’t there on other versions. As far as I know I am comparing like with like (ie not comparing different sources).

For instance there is this Miller version:
http://www.archive.org/details/gd1971-08-05.fob-SonyECM22p.miller.88859.sbeok.flac16

compared with this:

http://www.archive.org/details/gd1971-08-05.aud.smith.94260.sbeok.flac16

The Miller version has a glitch during Me & My Uncle at 00.21, the other doesn’t.

Another example is this

http://www.archive.org/details/gd1971-03-24.sbd.miller.85585.sbeok.flac16

compared with this:

http://www.archive.org/details/gd71-03-24.sbd.cotsman.9501.sbeok.shnf


The Miller version has problems during Loser at 00.55 and 3.08, the other version doesn’t.

To me the whole business of remastering and editing is a total black art and I have no idea what’s involved, but it has always struck me as odd that the Miller versions often introduce problems that weren’t there originally. In fact I noticed it happening with so many shows that I began to avoid his work in favour of less good remasters simply because I prefer to hear music without pops and clicks wherever possible (even if it means a less clear overall sound). Then I thought how odd this is considering how Charlie Miller is admired and venerated so I thought I’d just put this out there and see if anyone had any comments to make.

The only thing I could come up with that might make some sense is that the act of uploading something to the archive might itself introduce digital noises that weren’t there on the remaster. I can’t come up with any other explanation – it makes no sense to me that Mr Miller should slave away cleaning up and rejigging shows for the best possible quality and then overlook the sort of glitches I’ve given examples of above.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: CharlieMiller Date: May 25, 2010 5:54pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Charlie Miller

And why are you wasting your time with the audience recording to 8/5/71 when I put out the master reel sbd which is an upgrade to all copies?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: light into ashes Date: May 25, 2010 6:54pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Charlie Miller

Although xvgi's post was the silliest kind of nitpicking, I don't agree that time spent with an AUD is time wasted... Some people like the extra 'feel' of a show you can get in an AUD, versus the SBD clarity. After all, there was another post here today about how superior the 10-14-83 AUD is to the DP.... And it's not like people threw away their 8-6-71 AUDs when the SBD came out!

(Anyway, I notice that xvgi reviewed this show months ago stating that he didn't even listen past the second song, so obviously that one tiny glitch has been bugging him for months!)

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: dead-head_Monte Date: May 24, 2010 9:23am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Charlie Miller

At a minimum, Charlie Miller is, without a doubt, the most peer-reviewed person here. I meant to say Charlie is the most ear-reviewed person here.

I have written a simple description regarding many of the parameters and techniques that are routinely used to remaster analog tapes. My post about remastering my tapes.

There is nothing "black art" about this stuff. Personally, I find that I lack the steady professional patience that Charlie, or Kevin Tobin, or Hunter Seamons seem to have. I make more mistakes.

I once took a volunteer shot at upgrading a GD tape. A new tape source surfaced for a show at The Ark, April, 23, 1969. It appeared to me that this person wanted someone to fix it. The tape that was transferred was off-speed. Anyway, I made a small mistake when I worked on it. I was ripped to shreds immediately by someone. No big deal. We all learned something from the experience.

The details about The Sources, and The Lineage, are usually meticulous. Unless I'm missing something, everything here is hugely peer-reviewed. I think you have some type of software problem. As mentioned, maybe you're just not reading the information.

Thanks again for everything, Charlie.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: gratefuldiver Date: May 24, 2010 11:49pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Charlie Miller

1972 Mar 23, Academy of Music, NYC
Reviewer: Dr.Unclear - - July 7, 2009
Subject: A fitting tribute to CM's efforts to date
As the shnid system approached id number 100000, a group of individuals formed an online petition to reserve shnid 100000 for Charlie Miller. With about 800 signatures, the db.etree.org admins obliged and this transfer was given shnid 100000 in honor of Charlie Miller's contribute to the community to date.

'Nuff said.

...__[:]o

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: zeroenvy Date: May 24, 2010 6:34am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Charlie Miller

"To me the whole business of remastering and editing is a total black art and I have no idea what’s involved, but it has always struck me as odd that the Miller versions often introduce problems that weren’t there originally. In fact I noticed it happening with so many shows that I began to avoid his work in favour of less good remasters simply because I prefer to hear music without pops and clicks wherever possible (even if it means a less clear overall sound). Then I thought how odd this is considering how Charlie Miller is admired and venerated so I thought I’d just put this out there and see if anyone had any comments to make."


I think to say that he often introduces problems to recordings is a very bold statement. In fact, whenever looking up the versions of shows, I ALWAYS grab the charlie miller one first. His mixes are usually the most well balanced, and patched.

to be honest the whole time i was reading this part of your post i was thinking "this guy must be crazy" No offense. I guess to me the overall sound is more important then a little blip here and there. It just don't bother me that much. Different strokes for different fokes i guess.

maybe he could just be unaware? it does seem crazy to go through all that work and have something so tiny added.



This post was modified by zeroenvy on 2010-05-24 13:30:31

This post was modified by zeroenvy on 2010-05-24 13:34:35

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: huntr Date: May 24, 2010 8:55am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Charlie Miller

I have feelings on this issue..

...that I will keep to myself since virtually everyone on the planet is a CM fan

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: high flow Date: May 24, 2010 9:04am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Sources, remasters and glitchy snafus....

For those who have asked, "Why so many sources?". Here's your answer.

Some like matrix, some like aud, some like Ashley, some like Miller. Good news, it's all GD and it's all here.

I have not noticed the "new" glitches in CM remasters, but I spend very little time comparing sources.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: micah6vs8 Date: May 24, 2010 9:15am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Sources, remasters and glitchy snafus....

Hear , Hear ....the motion is passed

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: May 24, 2010 2:56pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Charlie Miller

Well, with the added perspective of 13000 km, I can say that Arb and I discussed this very thing yrs ago with ONE very important show (to me): 12-29-68. There is a distinct amt of "digi noise" as we came to call it on the all impt trk 6 (OOne), that, sorry to say, IS ONLY on the CM source...

Now, we sorted this out with much comparing and sourcing and the like, something I never do, and only have time to post about it now while waiting around in an airport....

But, I now make use of an "older" source for trk 6 when making CDs of this show to avoid the digi-noise.

While conducting this intense analysis, though, we were reminded that many of his efforts were relatively flawless, and almost always improvements.

However, I stand somewhere in the middle on it; I realized you DO indeed have to evaluate each and every show to make an assessment, and in spite of his great body of work, the one show I analyzed the most was the worst. This is NOT to say this means ALL the rest must be too if you look hard enough. Just means you never know bout one in particular that might be important to you til you try.

But who really has the time? Seriously...I have only done it for a handful of shows.

Keep up the good work CM, maybe even prove me wrong about 12-29-68 sometime...? I'd love it.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: bluedevil Date: May 24, 2010 3:11pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Amare Stoudemire!!!!!!!!!

That is all that needs to be said.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ducats Date: May 24, 2010 3:17pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Amare Stoudemire!!!!!!!!!

they looked good - but I still think it only goes 5. can the celts beat them? i think so.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: bluedevil Date: May 24, 2010 3:29pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Amare Stoudemire!!!!!!!!!

Maybe 6 - but its still the Lakers' series. Rondo has really impressed with the Celtics. Game changer in that series?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ducats Date: May 25, 2010 5:13am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Amare Stoudemire!!!!!!!!!

he could be - and it could be a great series

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: hippie64 Date: May 24, 2010 4:38pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Amare Stoudemire!!!!!!!!!

Amare needs a ring, 'Bron needs a ring, see where I'm going with this ?
Bring in Pat Riley, and whizz-bang everyone's(Shaq included)is in the Flats (a strip on the Cuyahoga)) toasting 2011.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: bluedevil Date: May 24, 2010 6:58pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Amare Stoudemire!!!!!!!!!

the river will sooner burn again....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRUpkgykwfM&;feature=related

This post was modified by bluedevil on 2010-05-25 01:58:50

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: hippie64 Date: May 25, 2010 4:23am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Amare Stoudemire!!!!!!!!!

CLEVELAND ROCKS !

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAhJmbAgCgE

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: May 24, 2010 3:26pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Amare Stoudemire!!!!!!!!!

Bynum?

[but, well played sir...signing off now!]

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: jerlouvis Date: May 24, 2010 4:36pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Charlie Miller

You have got to be kidding,to consider those almost imperceptible noises to be a glitch/problem severe enough to actually address is absurd.On the Cotsman file you offer up for comparison there is a glitch/ problem at the start of the Truckin' that does not appear on the Milller file of the same show,how come your not whining about that.I would be willing to bet you never listened to a Dead show on cassette,that you are some spoiled internet brat.Your comments and attitude are not those of someone appreciative of the time and effort all these folks who re-master and upload the shows we listen to here put into their craft,but are the nitpicking utterances of spoiled ignorance.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: xvgi Date: May 26, 2010 4:05am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Charlie Miller

Firstly, I am sorry for upsetting so many people. I thought at the time of posting my original comment that my question was a reasonable one but clearly I was very wrong indeed.

I realised of course that to raise such an issue might be seen as nitpicking/negative being as how it could be seen as a ‘complaint’ about something I’d got for free. But it was just something I’d wondered about and I – naively as it turns out – thought I’d air thoughts that obviously would have been best kept to myself.

I tried to make it clear that what I said wasn’t meant as a criticism - I wouldn’t have the bad manners to criticise an individual who has tirelessly done so much work for no obvious reward. But I suppose that maybe there was no way of expressing what I wanted to say without it coming across as a criticism, so I should have kept my mouth shut.

Mr Miller – I see that you claim this thread had nothing to do with your decision to cut back on your work. However, my words have clearly upset you (as, on reflection I realise they were bound to do) and I apologise for this. It wasn’t my intention to upset you or anyone else. You say ‘If you found a flaw on my source, did you email me to tel me about it?’ No – I didn’t, the reason being that I would have felt churlish, to say the least, to – as I said in my original post - ‘look a gift horse in the mouth’, ie to approach someone I don’t know but whose work I have happily availed myself of (for free), and say ‘I think you made a mistake here’. The phrase ‘I am not worthy’ comes to mind. Now I think about it, posting my comments on the forum wasn’t much more tactful, but I didn’t think of this at the time.


(Just as a bit of background – before writing my post I had been looking at
http://db.etree.org/shows where shows are discussed in such detail (ie a few seconds of digi-noise cut from one track, one second of silence removed from another track etc etc) that I thought it was quite normal to analyse what we were listening to in such depth. That was really where I was coming from – the discussions on this site were in such detail and the people doing the work were so meticulous about the smallest point, that I thought my question would be valid in that context. This is not meant to excuse what I said – just to try to explain it).

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: direwolf0701 Date: May 26, 2010 7:07am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Charlie Miller

i wouldnt worry too much about it. the amount of Charlie Miller worship on this board borders upon the sickening at times. I mean, jeeez, you would think the guy is Bono or something! ;)

but seriously, he is just a dude who enjoys circulating and reworking tapes. the obsession and deification he garners from many forumites is an ego-booster for him i am sure, but if any of my non-dead friends read all the drool-slathering genuflections bestowed upon him, it would be an embarrassment.

imho - the dude needs to get over himself

(sorry if this offends anybody)

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: robthewordsmith Date: May 26, 2010 7:25am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Charlie Miller

You and Tell have pretty much nailed how I feel about this too. Frankly I couldn't give a damn about the odd click, bleep or hiss on the soundboards (how do you tell with all the missed cues and bum notes anyway?), but when one person is held in such unquestioning esteem that to even hint that he might be just a little less than perfect brings a shitstorm down on your head then we've gone wrong somewhere. No one is beyond criticism. I reckon you're not too far short of the mark when you say that Mr Miller got a bit comfortable soaking up the hero worship. It is all pretty embarrassing.

So the heck with all this. How are you, wolfie?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: direwolf0701 Date: May 26, 2010 7:39am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Charlie Miller

i am doing pretty darn fine - thanks :) was gonna email you the other day - hadnt seen you on the forum much and wanted to know how you were doing. granted, i have basically only been lurking lately and maybe you are just doing the same.

how are things on your side of the pond?? certainly hope things are going well and your creative juices have been flowing in a positive direction!

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: robthewordsmith Date: May 26, 2010 8:00am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Charlie Miller

I'm pretty much ok here and I guess doing more lurking than participating these days too. Just don't feel motivated to contribute as often as I used to. The email thing sounds like a good idea - let's do that some time soon.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: shorthopper88 Date: May 26, 2010 2:03pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Charlie Miller

From my perspective, no worries man. I thought it was a completely respectful thread. Were allowed to debate and voice our opinions here, aren't we? Theirs no way you could have known that Charlie Miller was going to throw a hissy fit about it. Lets admit it, he overreacted, he was out of line to take it so personally and react in the childish way he did. Just because he's Charlie Miller doesn't mean he is exempt from criticism. Hell, we've probably criticized every member of the Grateful Dead on this forum, and you don't see them throwing tantrums on internet forums. He and everyone should remember that we can say whatever we want on this forum, and at the end of the day, its just an internet forum.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Cliff Hucker Date: May 26, 2010 2:49pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Charlie Miller

It's OK to be critical of Charlie's remasters, just dont ever give any of Hunter Seamons matrices a bad review!

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Daddy D Date: May 26, 2010 4:58pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Charlie Miller

wow . . . no more CM boards?? F me! Say it 'aint so!!

How long do I have before withdrawal symptoms begin to show??

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: CharlieMiller Date: May 26, 2010 7:28pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Charlie Miller

My email address is in every info file I out out, so there are over 1,000 files with the email addy in it. Luckily, I still have the same email address i got over 10 years ago.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: CharlieMiller Date: May 27, 2010 10:53am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Charlie Miller

I didn't throw a hissy fit. My point was that if you found a flaw in one of my sources, you should have contacted me about it so i could fix it.

With all the stupidity that goes on here, I rarely read this page, but every now and then i come by to see if i could help by offering some info.

As I said, my choice to stop circulating uncirculated sbd's had nothing to do with this thread. It was a choice i made a few days ago.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: light into ashes Date: May 26, 2010 4:54am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Charlie Miller

I'd also like to apologize....I think I've been snitty in this thread as well.
Although I wasn't thrilled with the original post, that's mainly to do with my own temperament (I'm not a perfect-sound-quality fiend myself) - it was at least a justifiable attempt to start a discussion.
But when I saw Mr Miller (who usually, if you've seen his posts, writes only a few words) go on at length about how upset he was, and that he wasn't going to put out any more new SBDs - I admit, it put me in a very foul mood, and I'm still in grief at that news. Whatever his reason is.
I wish there were more people like him, who could uncover new Dead sources for everyone.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: deadhead53 Date: May 26, 2010 4:43am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Charlie Miller

You know, why do people have to open their mouths on issues that do not need to be dealt with. Mr. Miller has given so much to this community and I personally love his boards, they are the only ones I get but to call someone out on shows that you percieve may be imperfect, well is ridiculous. This really irritates me, to read Mr. Miller's posts, one can tell his is upset and with good reason. Here's the solutuion if you don't like what he puts out find another source to use!

Mr. Miller I hope you reconsider but if you don't thank you so much for the sbd's you have put out. I really enjoy listening to what you upload here!

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: CharlieMiller Date: May 25, 2010 5:49pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Charlie Miller

I used different sources than the two you compared them two. Yeah, spending 15 hours a day in front of a computer can be draining and every now and then a flaw slips by. So out of the 1,000+ sources I have put out, you found two with flaws.

Keep up the good work.

I never claimed to be perfect, but at least I try.

But you don't have to worry about this happening again. Since I have put out over 1,000 sources, I figured it's time to stop. So now you can focus your time and energy on something else. I'm done circulating music.

Consider me retired.

bye.


Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: light into ashes Date: May 25, 2010 6:30pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Charlie Miller

Good work, xvgi!
It's not every day a forumite gets a response like this from one of the most important & respected members of the GD community.
This must be the true reward for your ongoing search to find every little glitch & crackle in a Miller source!

Perhaps in the future, when people ask, "whatever happened to Miller?" we can just link to your post, and they'll realize it was all for the best....



Anyway - to Charlie - I hope you're being sarcastic. Annoying as a post like that must be, any fool can post on a forum, and there's no need to swat at every mosquito that buzzes by...

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: May 25, 2010 7:27pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Charlie Miller

Hey...lighten up.

And I mean that for everyone else.

There are problems with CM shows, and he should be fine with that--doing a "thousand" of anything insures it will happen.

But, for the rest, sure--big improvements, but that gives no special status, no special "handsoff" req'ment.

Why doesn't Hunter get it from CLIFF, then?

To each his own, but make no mistake, doing this sort of thing doesn't give you special status...

And, yet, sure--a big fat thank you from me to you, CMiller. But to put off on this poster the notion that YOU quit the biz because of him is just way outta line.

Even from way over here.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: CharlieMiller Date: May 25, 2010 8:19pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Charlie Miller

If you found a flaw on my source, did you email me to tel me about it? I didn't think so.

As for me stopping with the sbds, I've done enough and am done. It has nothing to do with this thread. I'll still put stuff out, but not uncirculated boards.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: mickmac Date: May 25, 2010 9:08pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Charlie Miller

Thank you so much Charlie. You have brought many hours of listening joy to my life. Cannot wait for whats next. Good wishes for your future endeavors! My appreciation.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: May 25, 2010 8:27pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Charlie Miller

Well, actually, I did post about it here...sorry, assumed you didn't have the time. Didn't know your email.

My bad.

No worries--do what you gotta (re: want to) do.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: midnight sun Date: May 26, 2010 1:01pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Charlie Miller

one piece of valuable advice contemporary sport coaches give their players is, "Don't participate in the blogs."

forever grateful for your efforts, but don't do it for us, do it for the music

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: high flow Date: May 25, 2010 6:33pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: another report of a slain golden goose.

See.....you f*cks! I tried to re-name this thread because a thread in a persons name is bad etiquette.

The author attempted to preface his remarks with a positive statement which I suspect was overlooked by some. However I agree it is silly to nit-pick Charlie's work. There is so much good stuff to appreciate, you have to be a bit mad to go hunting for flaws.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Cliff Hucker Date: May 25, 2010 6:25pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Charlie Miller

Very sorry to hear that Charlie!

But it will give Hunter some time to catch up with his "enhancements" of your re-masters...

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: skuzzlebutt Date: May 24, 2010 12:54pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Charlie Miller

I've not really noticed these flaws. As midnight sun notes, one possible explaination could be that Charlie is working from a different source and therefore you aren't actually getting a true before-and-after comparison.

Generally speaking I've found Charlie's transfers to be an improvement in most cases and certainly never any worse that whatever is already out there. Of course, some mistakes are probably inevitable given the large body of work he produces, but a blip here or there seems like a small price to pay for what he's given the trading the community.

I don't know Charlie but I know he pops in here occasionally; maybe he'll have something to add...?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: light into ashes Date: May 24, 2010 12:43pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Charlie Miller

Isn't it asking too much to expect that any Miller source = perfection?
I think, more than any black art of remastering, most of Miller's "secret" is that he generally has access to the master tapes, and makes his digital copies from those.
However, he's still at the mercy of his sources.
Sometimes he'll use a patch or alternate section if there's a piece awry in his source - but often he doesn't.
I just noticed an '84 Miller source, for instance, in which an entire 6-minute jam out of space is missing!
You may have noticed, he often releases a second version of a show he's done, with extra pitch correction or a new patch. Or sometimes, someone else uploads a show copy that's superior to what he had.
So a little comparison (and a check of the text files) is always necessary if you're looking for the "best" source, rather than just grabbing the nearest Miller.